Peer-reviewed research by the University of Sydney, published in the Australian Veterinary Journal, has found that some commercial pet food could cause 'severe illness or injury' to adult cats.

Transcript

plusminus

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Around two million Australians are cat owners and a new study has revealed the health of their animals could be at risk from what they're eating. The peer-reviewed research by the University of Sydney published in the Australian Veterinary Journal found that some commercial pet food could cause severe illness or injury to adult cats. Eight out of the 20 products tested did not meet nutritional standards. But the report's publishers, authors and the university won't reveal the names of the companies that make the potentially dangerous brands, prompting animal experts and cat owners to ask why. James Thomas has our story.

RICHARD MALIK, FELINE SPECIALIST, UNI. OF SYDNEY: Everybody should be able to see what's in the food. It's not a secret. In every article, in order to be published, they have to say who funded the study, all aspects of the study and whether any of the authors had a conflict of interest. If we knew that, if they had to disclose that, we wouldn't need to speculate.

JAMES THOMAS, REPORTER: The research conducted by the University of Sydney and published in the Australian Veterinary Journal is damning. There are serious issues with the nutritional composition of supermarket and pet shop cat food in Australia.

SUE FOSTER, FELINE SPECIALIST: There are health implications for cats.

JAMES THOMAS: 20 supermarket or pet shop cat foods labelled "nutritionally complete" were tested. Nine didn't adhere to the Australian standard guaranteed or typical content claims on the package. Eight be products were found to contain protein or fat levels likely to cause severe illness or injury to adult cats, including diseases such as:

RICHARD MALIK: Osteoarthritis, diabetes, a foreshortened life span, and probably, extrapolating from other species, the development of cancer.

JAMES THOMAS: More than two million cat owners have cause for serious concern.

JOURNALIST: Does this concern you at all?

MATTHEW GEFTAKIS, CAT OWNER: Of course. An animal becomes part of your life.

JAMES THOMAS: And the pet food industry is reeling.

DUNCAN HALL, PET FOOD INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: We do want to understand a lot more about this report. We have flagged this report to our members. So yes, we have concerns, of course we have concerns with regards to findings where the nutrient levels are not what is expected and certainly the degree of some of those changes was a surprise.

JAMES THOMAS: The research threatens the profits of a $2 billion industry. So, the million-dollar question: which products are they?

At this point in the story, I would normally tell you which cat foods you need to avoid in order to keep your animal safe. But in a curious development, the Sydney University researchers behind this study have refused to give the ABC the names of the products that they tested.

Well why can't the nation know what the products are?

ROBERT JOHNSON, PRES., AUST. VETERINARY ASSOC.: Down the track, we might find that out, but at this stage, it was not revealed in that article. A decision was made by the editor.

JAMES THOMAS: Dr Robert Johnson is the president of the Australian Veterinary Association. He defends his journal's editor Anne Jackson's decision to publish the study without product names. Anne Jackson told the ABC the study was "preliminary", small-scale and requires a larger study before products can be named.

ROBERT JOHNSON: I think it presents a reasonable balance not to name any particular company. And, you know, I think it's quite ethical to do that.

JAMES THOMAS: The published study makes no mention of being preliminary and some internationally respected academics say the size of the study is irrelevant to its validity or whether or not products are named.

SUE FOSTER: If the methodology is completely robust, then I can't personally see a great reason for not releasing those names.

JAMES THOMAS: Feline specialist and an adjunct senior lecturer at Murdoch University Dr Sue Foster says that protecting company names when animal welfare is at risk is a concern to vets who need to know what is and isn't safe for their patients.

SUE FOSTER: It's the uncertainty it creates 'cause we actually don't know and can't see that data. That would be my problem. I certainly was interested in knowing which products when I read the paper.

RICHARD MALIK: Because it's not transparent. Because you and I, in talking about it, are guessing what's going on. We should know.

JAMES THOMAS: Dr Richard Malik is a feline specialist with the Sydney University. He has serious concerns that the study has withheld the names of products to protect or prop up university sponsors like Hills or Royal Canin pet foods.

RICHARD MALIK: The only plausible thing that makes any sense to me is they haven't been named because they want to make people worry about buying food from supermarkets and pet stores. They want people to buy premium food made by the type of companies that have these relationships with all the unis in Australia.

JAMES THOMAS: Dr Malik says that because the study doesn't name the dangerous products, it casts doubt over every supermarket brand, forcing cat owners to seek advice from a vet.

MELISSA CATT, VETERINARIAN: People look to us to provide them with, you know, the most up-to-date and professional information that we can, so we would like to be able to do that.

JAMES THOMAS: And when a study highlights serious nutritional issues with supermarket food, vets like Melissa Catt must take the safest option.

MELISSA CATT: But we do recommend that they feed the premium products because we feel that they're the ones that meet the highest standards in terms of being complete and balanced.

JAMES THOMAS: The University of Sydney says the cat food study, "did not receive any commercial funding," and denies suggestions of any benefit or influence from pet food companies.

TOM LONSDALE, VETERINARIAN: Well, I don't think they're at liberty to deny it because it's in the documents.

JAMES THOMAS: Using Freedom of Information requests, vet Tom Lonsdale, a critic of the pet food industry, uncovered sponsorship agreements between the University of Sydney and pet food companies Royal Canin and Hills. The deal allows Hills pet food significant benefits, including the hosting of conferences, product placement in the vet clinic, dressing students in branded lab coats, and, as seen in this heavily-redacted sponsorship agreement, "Research Engagement with [the] Charles Perkins Chair in Comparative Nutrition".

JAMES THOMAS: That's Professor David Raubenheimer, a globally-recognised scientist and an author on the cat food study. The pet food sponsorship was not disclosed in the study. But the University of Sydney say that, "Hills did not proceed," with engaging Professor Raubenheimer in any research and maintain that pet food sponsorships did not fund the cat food study or influence it in any way.

RICHARD MALIK: The problem is the unis don't have enough money and they're trying to get money wherever they can. And in this particular case, the pet food manufacturers are generous in their money, and, you know, they want something back for it.

JAMES THOMAS: Yeah. Such as?

RICHARD MALIK: Influence.

JAMES THOMAS: The pet food industry doesn't see it that way.

DUNCAN HALL: It's my understanding that individual companies do have arrangements with universities in regards to supporting student activities, continuing education, bringing out world-class speakers that otherwise wouldn't be brought out here, James, and I think that's entirely a positive for the veterinary profession.

JAMES THOMAS: In relation to the study the pet food industry's spokesman Duncan Hall is also calling for the release of the product names.

DUNCAN HALL: We've also reached out to try to set up a meeting with the researchers themselves. I personally have put in calls and emails to two of the researchers. Unfortunately, those haven't been answered.

JAMES THOMAS: The Australian Veterinary Journal's editor Anne Jackson has issued a statement seemingly backing away from the research, now saying it, "cannot be relied upon until confirmed by large, formal trials," and that is why, "it would be inappropriate for the authors to include the names of the companies".

TOM LONSDALE: Well, they're absurd. I mean, if they were going to stand by what they wrote, then they would be prepared to publish the names. It's ridiculous now to start to denigrate their own research project.

JAMES THOMAS: Dr Lonsdale and Dr Malik believe the journal may be caving in to the might of the pet food companies, a claim the president of the Australian Veterinary Association rejects.

ROBERT JOHNSON: It takes advertising from lots of different companies.

JAMES THOMAS: And you don't think that would influence the way they present their scientific studies?

ROBERT JOHNSON: No. Definitely not.

JAMES THOMAS: Why not?

ROBERT JOHNSON: Because I have the utmost faith in the editorial committee and the editor.

MATTHEW GEFTAKIS: It's like having a child, so you want to make sure it has the best upbringing it can possibly have.

JAMES THOMAS: But some veterinarians are losing faith. They're calling on the names of products in this study to be released so they can properly inform cat owners like Matthew Geftakis just what products are safe for his cat.

MATTHEW GEFTAKIS: If they've found something wrong with a particular food, then, yes, it should be - they should be named, basically.